NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think this is a better solution to problems cause by Resolution #1: Fight the Axis of Evil? Please tell me what you think.


United Nations Peacekeeping
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Noting the growing opposition to Resolution #1: Fight the Axis of Evil, the Commonwealth of Maritime Canada suggests that, rather than repeal this legislation, it should be reexamined and restructured. This resolution will complement Resolution #1 creating a more cooperative approach to action in the name of peace.

Part One: Problems with Resolution #1
- Does not state who or what the Axis of Evil is.
- Does not call for cooperative effort in fighting the Axis of Evil.
- Does not state how higher military funding and new weapons will be implemented in fighting the Axis of Evil.

Part Two: New Extensions and Clarifications
- The Axis of Evil will be extended to include all violent forces that are deemed to be in opposition of a peaceful resolve to conflict. This means that belligerents must show a willingness to attempt diplomatic resolve before resorting to violence, or they will be deemed part of the Axis of Evil
- The United Nations will establish a Deptartment of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), with an office and staff as well as an advisory commitee formed by international experts in areas such as Military Strategy, World History and Diplomacy. The mandate of the DPKO will be further discussed in Part Three: Peacekeeping Operations.
- Funding for the creation and continued operation of the DPKO will be drawn from the military budgets of all U.N. member nations. The U.N. will require that each nation increase their military budget as outlined in Resolution #1, so as not to disrupt their respective militaries.

Part Three: Peacekeeping Operations
- Peace Observing: Any nation(s) may request a Peace Observing mission to observe a peace agreement made by two or more belligerents. The DPKO will respond by sending a group of unarmed Military Observers (MILOBs) to monitor the situation. If necessary, a small armed detachment may also be sent to escort MILOBs. Any activity which undermines the peace agreement must be reported by the MILOBs to the DPKO for review.
- Peacekeeping: Any nation(s) may request a U.N. conflict intervention force to effectively seperate two or more belligerents and stop the violence. In this case an armed military force will be dispatched to the region to bring the situation under control while diplomatic efforts are made to resolve the conflict peacefully. MILOBS will also be dispatched to monitor the situation. Any activity which undermines the peace process must be reported by the MILOBs to the DPKO for review.
- Peace Enforcement: The U.N. may dispatch a conflict intervention force with an aggresive mandate if one or more belligerents are seen to be in violation of international law or are seen to be acting to undermine a peace agreement/process. This force will carry out offensive military actions to gain control over the situation. Once U.N. control and a ceasefire has been established, diplomats will work towards a peaceful resolve of the conflict. During this period, MILOBS will be dispatched to monitor the situation. Any activity which undermines the peace process must be reported by the MILOBs to the DPKO for review.
- Soldiers and Military Observers will be military personnel volunteered by any U.N. member nation. No nation will be obligated to take part in any mission. The equipment U.N. Peacekeeping personnel must supplied by their respective nations. Nations who participate will recieve some monetary compensation. The Deptartment of Peacekeeping Operations will be responsible for overseeing all missions.

To any mods: Would this work, seeing that it is based on expanding/complementing the effects of another resolution?

Maybe it'd do better as a standalone rather than relying on a resolution everyone, their grandma, and their super-intelligent cow are trying to repeal.

The mods also aren't too keen on proposals which establish a "UN army", so there might be problems even if it's a peacekeeping one. Then you have the question of who decides where the peacekeeping force is used? The UN would have to vote for it, which means you'd probably need a resolution, and it's not easy just to get one to the floor. So there are some gameplay problems here.

1) The UN doesn't get an army.
2) This is a repeal/new resolution. It would need to be split.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I should probably make it clearer that my proposal does not establish a UN army, but allows a country to act in UN sanctioned military operations. eg: Country violates international law, UN calls for peacekeeping, Nation X responds by sending appropriate forces. Of course, by creating the DPKO this does not change gameplay mechanics ie: the UN will not be voting on resolutions for peacekeeping it will happen in the background: operations that are always happening, though their specifics are never handled by the general assembly because they are handled by the DPKO. A little complicated but this is the only way I can think of explaining it. Basically the important part is that it creates the DPKO which handles creating and controlling peacekeeping operations, so it won't really effect gameplay.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I should probably make it clearer that my proposal does not establish a UN army, but allows a country to act in UN sanctioned military operations. eg: Country violates international law, UN calls for peacekeeping, Nation X responds by sending appropriate forces. Of course, by creating the DPKO this does not change gameplay mechanics ie: the UN will not be voting on resolutions for peacekeeping it will happen in the background: operations that are always happening, though their specifics are never handled by the general assembly because they are handled by the DPKO. A little complicated but this is the only way I can think of explaining it. Basically the important part is that it creates the DPKO which handles creating and controlling peacekeeping operations, so it won't really effect gameplay.The thing is, your still calling for an organ to do this, and your still saying if there is conflict, " UN calls for peace keeping " and that is a problem right there.

The U.N. cannot call for peace-keeping. And, international law is ONLY that law which the N.S.U.N. passes, and THAT law CANNOT be violated any-way, remember,

U.N. Resolutions = International law,

U.N. Resolutions = 100 % Compliance.

It could be said that were some one to " claim " to be breaking that law, your COULD, MAYBE R.P. with them that your stepping in on your own in an independant manner to re-enforce international law ( shrug )

The U.N. cannot call for peace-keeping. And, international law is ONLY that law which the N.S.U.N. passes, and THAT law CANNOT be violated any-way, remember,

U.N. Resolutions = International law,

U.N. Resolutions = 100 % Compliance.

It could be said that were some one to " claim " to be breaking that law, your COULD, MAYBE R.P. with them that your stepping in on your own in an independant manner to re-enforce international law ( shrug )

I disagree.

Sophista did not comply with the Law of the Sea and this action resulted in the Dodge Ball war, covered on the International Incidents forum.

Furthermore, international law also includes things not covered in the UN. A good example of this would be invite only regions or ejection functions. A regional founder need not be in the UN and can pass judgement on regional level international laws.

The UN just happens to be easier and more popular than other international arrangments (due to game mechanics), but it is not the only answer.